Why are you Atheist?
page 138

You are an atheist, then. The definition the atheist community uses (and also most respectable intellectuals) is that an atheist is someone who does not believe in any god (remember, disbelief =/= denial). :D

You are an atheist, then. The definition the atheist community uses (and also most respectable intellectuals) is that an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god (remember, disbelief =/= denial). :D

Holy-L, I don’t want to come across as “disagreeing” w/ ya…nor to seem as if I’m “quibbling” over subtle nuances of definitions.
But, for me…when there is an “a” attached at the beginning of a word (such as moral and amoral), it likely means: away or absent of. It seems to establish “moral” as the dominate and anything different as being “NOT moral”.

I realize the extreme subtleties of the distinction: Merely being different shouldn’t automatically mean there is a “related” comparison to something else The two concepts might be able to “stand on their own”….and maybe be “equally” viable in its own right. We don’t say: “Aimmoral”….so why ONLY amoral, as if morality were the “thing” to “not be”?

As ya said, MOST ppl (likely of all intellectual capabilities, even?) will use the word “A”-theist to denote a person who DOESNOTBELIEVE in a god. To me, this comes across as being: the-exception-that-proves-the-rule. That rule being: There IS a god to NOT believe in.

This definition renders: “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.12 In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.345Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.4567 Atheism is contrasted with theism,89 which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.910”

Please, bear w/ me…I’m gonna try to clear that one up…lol
To NOTBELIEVE there is a god somewhat establishes that here is one for someone to opt to not believe in.
A better phrase might be: someone who is indifferent to the concept of the existence of a god.
As is shown (in bold) above.

The fact that the above definition gives broad sense, & a narrower sense, & a most inclusively ways to view atheism might help us be more aware that different ppl will quite possibly be using one of those concepts while we are thinking of an other.

This is why I prefer to not even “involve” the word THEISM to describe my understanding of the “unknown” in this area. I go w/ the term ignosticism: “Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.”

“It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
1.The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term “God” is considered meaningless.
2.The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking “What is meant by ‘God’?” before proclaiming the original question “Does God exist?” as meaningless."

“Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,1 while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that he cannot even say whether he is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.”

…. that’s literally what he just said, Karma. He was saying that you don’t have to actively disbelieve in a God to be an atheist. Lacking a belief in one makes you an atheist, even if you don’t claim any statements about Gods. Actively disbelieving Gods cannot exist is a bizarre state of being, and I don’t know anyone who REALLY believes that who I consider intellectually competent. Your jump to ignosticism is a different statement, and you’re simply advocating for its logic. He was applying the definition of a term coherently, while you’re suggesting a better way of being is ignosticism. I appreciate your introducing me to ignosticism, but I don’t exactly think it’s a mutually exclusive position either. I am an atheist because I don’t believe in any of the mentioned Gods, but I’m also an ignostic because the potentials of “Gods” isn’t a defined concept. Enough abstraction and gravity becomes a God.

You are an atheist, then. The definition the atheist community uses (and also most respectable intellectuals) is that an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god (remember, disbelief =/= denial). :D

By that definition we are all atheists, as for each person there is going to be at least one god they don’t believe in.

Not so much. I think I can see how that would work. The person’s impression of the universe being such that gods, or higher beings of all types are required to oversee the universe and keep things running. Something like a Lovecraftian view of the cosmos would fit into that category, with different great old ones and different outer gods running different aspects of the universe (similar to watchmakers overseeing a great clockwork mechanism), whilst an elder being of some type or description is actually in charge of the overall thing.

That kind of world-view would come out of a belief that no sufficently complex system could run for any great length of time without either periodic or continuous maintenance.

You are an atheist, then. The definition the atheist community uses (and also most respectable intellectuals) is that an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god (remember, disbelief =/= denial). :D

By that definition we are all atheists, as for each person there is going to be at least one god they don’t believe in.

Relative Atheism, and you’re absolutely correct. The same reason I disregard all religions, most everyone disregards one. The distinction between the ones people believe in and don’t is the key. By the way, not to pick on anyone, but I’d argue there’s a better term for your “theism,” vika. I don’t disagree with any of the reasons you believe in potential deities, but that’s just my agnosticism. I don’t believe we know about any Gods, but I absolutely, as a transhumanist, believe a particular definition of Godhood is achievable by a species, perhaps even our own. I’m not sure I like calling that pursuit “God” for the same reason Karma and I described Ignosticism.

Originally posted by TheBSG: By the way, not to pick on anyone, but I’d argue there’s a better term for your “theism,” vika. I don’t disagree with any of the reasons you believe in potential deities, but that’s just my agnosticism. I don’t believe we know about any Gods, but I absolutely, as a transhumanist, believe a particular definition of Godhood is achievable by a species, perhaps even our own.

I know where you are coming from, but when I’m trying to convey my belief to others, theism is the term closest to what I’m trying to say. I believe in the high probability of beings that are both more powerful than us, and very very different to us. Daemons is probably the closest term (in the oiginal meaning).

I also believe many or even most such have no interest in us beyond perhaps individual familiarity, or as something to prey upon.

On top of all that, there are the beings composed of the group-think mindsets of many of our species, and probably other species besides. Any being that can transcend a single physical body and exist in multiple at any one time, can be considered to be greater than that which lies in any single physical body.

Many of those concepts are transhumanist, whilst others are not. However, when trying to explain them to others, theism is the only term I’ve come across which really fits. After all, I do believe in the Christian’s god, just not in the same way they do. They see it as a deity which created the universe, and I see it as an emergent being using every believer’s brain as a node in a group-think overmind.

Because I do believe in it, my views towards their deity are not atheist or agnostic, but at the same time I have no desire to worship it or be a part of it. What other possible term that is communicatable, could there be?

Because I do believe in it, my views towards their deity are not atheist or agnostic, but at the same time I have no desire to worship it or be a part of it. What other possible term that is communicatable, could there be?

Well actually your views towards their god as defined by them are atheist. You do not believe in their Gods but factually something else that gets the same label but is something substantially different.
So different that the label God becomes questionable. Sounds more like multi-pan-apotheisis to me.

Edit: i have been digging around a bit regarding the different words and definitions that could be used, but it is really hard since your ideas take elements of many different forms of belief but by doing so opposes them all.

Hence why I think my belief system falls into occultism. Seekers of hidden or forbidden knowledge. Trying to unravel how the system could possibly work, and then poke whatever’s accessible to see how it responds.

It is quite possible my system is kind of the ultimate heresy, because if I am shown any evidence of the possibility of a deity’s direct involvement, I wanna poke it and pull it apart, try to duplicate or improve on it. I wouldn’t say no to duplicating the tricks of the trade of the deities, or even the risky path of elevating myself or something derived from myself to the same level.

Originally posted by TheBSG: By the way, not to pick on anyone, but I’d argue there’s a better term for your “theism,” vika. I don’t disagree with any of the reasons you believe in potential deities, but that’s just my agnosticism. I don’t believe we know about any Gods, but I absolutely, as a transhumanist, believe a particular definition of Godhood is achievable by a species, perhaps even our own.

I know where you are coming from, but when I’m trying to convey my belief to others, theism is the term closest to what I’m trying to say. I believe in the high probability of beings that are both more powerful than us, and very very different to us. Daemons is probably the closest term (in the oiginal meaning).

I also believe many or even most such have no interest in us beyond perhaps individual familiarity, or as something to prey upon.

On top of all that, there are the beings composed of the group-think mindsets of many of our species, and probably other species besides. Any being that can transcend a single physical body and exist in multiple at any one time, can be considered to be greater than that which lies in any single physical body.

Many of those concepts are transhumanist, whilst others are not. However, when trying to explain them to others, theism is the only term I’ve come across which really fits. After all, I do believe in the Christian’s god, just not in the same way they do. They see it as a deity which created the universe, and I see it as an emergent being using every believer’s brain as a node in a group-think overmind.

Because I do believe in it, my views towards their deity are not atheist or agnostic, but at the same time I have no desire to worship it or be a part of it. What other possible term that is communicatable, could there be?

We disagree in zero ways. I especially appreciate the actuality of the Christian God using those terms.

To you with religious leanings, have you noticed those who are the harbingers of society all claim to be atheists? You may have also noticed they all have really oddball personal lives and political leanings. Sad, isn’t it?

I didn’t expect you to bring up any sources for that…
But, nevertheless, it would have been nice if you provided some to look a bit less ignorant.

I need to reiterate the intentions of the 4th point: If the universe would look the exact same way as it does today without a creator as it does with one, how did you figure out there was a creator?

Well, we did not just come here with magic, logic.

Why not?

There has to be someone who created the heavens and the Earth.

Why the personalisation.
And you just said that you don’t believe in a solution that incorporates magic. And now you are here, claiming that there needs to be some really powerful person.
…
Really powerful… You mean, like magic?

I don’t believe in the ‘Big Bang Theory’ as most atheists do.

Why not? It’s a theory that tries to use evidence to find a solution that works without stuff like magic.
You should love it.

I actually I shouldn’t love it and I will not love it, thanks for the ignorancy.

I need to reiterate the intentions of the 4th point: If the universe would look the exact same way as it does today without a creator as it does with one, how did you figure out there was a creator?

Well, we did not just come here with magic, logic.

Why not?

There has to be someone who created the heavens and the Earth.

Why the personalisation?
And you just said that you don’t believe in a solution that incorporates magic. And now you are here, claiming that there needs to be some really powerful person.
…
Really powerful… You mean, like magic?

I don’t believe in the ‘Big Bang Theory’ as most atheists do.

Why not? It’s a theory that tries to use evidence to find a solution that works without stuff like magic.
You should love it.

I actually I shouldn’t love it and I will not love it, thanks for the ignorancy.

You said that you don’t believe that magic is a reasonable explanation for the beginning of the universe.
The only reasonable explanation that does not incorporate something that could be called magic is the Big Bang theory.
One of the most prominent explanations that obviously does incorporate something that could be called magic is the Christian creation myth.

So, yeah… I really don’t understand what you have against the Big Bang theory… Or how you can believe into a personal creator if you don’t believe in magic.

I wouldn’t describe myself as atheist, agnostic, religious so much as completely indifferent to the notion. I believe in scientific truth just as much as I respect the historical significance of the church. I don’t deny the existence of God or long for it, because in the end, the portion of my life that matters – the part in which I’m living – is controlled solely through my own actions, and Lady Luck.

Religion is bad when its adherents force their principles on those who don’t believe in them.
Atheism is bad when those who associate with atheism consider the devoutly religious to be ignorant.

Good post. Short, to the point, doesn’t leave anything out. Certainly better than BSG / Karma / PatriotSaint’s indignant ramblings that go nowhere. Or Johnnybegood who made a comparison between atheist activism and black / gay discrimination which, incredibly, went by unchallenged.

In retrospect to previous posts on this subject, I’d have to agree with issendorf – It’s an interesting enough subject but not one I have much interest in discussing with ANY of the gasbags here pandering to one side or the other. It’s not a question of wielding ‘social clout’ in public to shut down a discussion, as BSG pretends; rather, it’s that I highly doubt that I would have to engage in a meticulous side-discussion about the merits of Richard Dawkins being the most notable atheist, or if God-like is too strange an adjective to describe him, or whether in the same context, Darwin might be a better choice, or so on and on. Discussions like that in real life (from my experience) tend to be pretty tongue-in-cheek: people GET that it’s a pretty absurd line to take in the argument. On the internet (and trash forums like SD in particular), that is not the case; no, everything must be hyper-analyzed to the death so that humorless bots like vika can be seen to be saying something important, as opposed to irrelevant, by which time the original point has been lost and everyone with an interest in THAT discussion is forced to backtrack to find it. The result of which is that threads like these (the gun thread is another good example, only with more bickering) go around and around and no one says anything to advance the conversation, even if it’s the same five people who’ve been arguing for months.

If you’re still lurking about Janto I had a question for you that I was thinking about earlier in this section actually. Do you self identify as “religious”? With what little I know about your persuasion, it’s not something I’d associate you with. But curious if you hold the same position.

As a more general question to everyone. Do you feel there is a separation between being religious and theistic? Assuming so, does that line hold any real relevance to your views and opinions?

I’ve always thought of the term “religious” as something entrenched in some form of dogmatism, a continuation of history and rite. Theism, on the other hand although also encompassing Religious, I feel holds no opposition to God assumptive Agnostics.

As a more general question to everyone. Do you feel there is a separation between being religious and theistic? Assuming so, does that line hold any real relevance to your views and opinions?

Yes. If you have a religious view, it means you follow the beliefs as set out by your church leader, and you obey what is handed down to you as a system of belief. You take part in ceremonies, rituals and the like formed from the religion’s codex. Simple theism on the other hand, is more of a personal belief system involving the existence of deities or deity-like beings. It can quite easily be that this belief system is the one given to you by your religion, or one which you have assembled yourself without being told what to believe by others (or at least not listening to them).

I wouldn’t describe myself as atheist, agnostic, religious so much as completely indifferent to the notion. I believe in scientific truth just as much as I respect the historical significance of the church. I don’t deny the existence of God or long for it, because in the end, the portion of my life that matters – the part in which I’m living – is controlled solely through my own actions, and Lady Luck.

Religion is bad when its adherents force their principles on those who don’t believe in them.
Atheism is bad when those who associate with atheism consider the devoutly religious to be ignorant.

Good post. Short, to the point, doesn’t leave anything out. Certainly better than BSG / Karma / PatriotSaint’s indignant ramblings that go nowhere. Or Johnnybegood who made a comparison between atheist activism and black / gay discrimination which, incredibly, went by unchallenged.

In retrospect to previous posts on this subject, I’d have to agree with issendorf – It’s an interesting enough subject but not one I have much interest in discussing with ANY of the gasbags here pandering to one side or the other. It’s not a question of wielding ‘social clout’ in public to shut down a discussion, as BSG pretends; rather, it’s that I highly doubt that I would have to engage in a meticulous side-discussion about the merits of Richard Dawkins being the most notable atheist, or if God-like is too strange an adjective to describe him, or whether in the same context, Darwin might be a better choice, or so on and on. Discussions like that in real life (from my experience) tend to be pretty tongue-in-cheek: people GET that it’s a pretty absurd line to take in the argument. On the internet (and trash forums like SD in particular), that is not the case; no, everything must be hyper-analyzed to the death so that humorless bots like vika can be seen to be saying something important, as opposed to irrelevant, by which time the original point has been lost and everyone with an interest in THAT discussion is forced to backtrack to find it. The result of which is that threads like these (the gun thread is another good example, only with more bickering) go around and around and no one says anything to advance the conversation, even if it’s the same five people who’ve been arguing for months.

So in short, fuck that.

Why did you even post? Please point me to your awesome contributions to discussions, and the endless ramblings. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do anything more than make personal attacks on these forums when someone doesn’t automatically agree with your appeals to tradition.

There has yet to be a coherent redress of the basic points I’ve presented recently. Try tackling that instead of bandstanding?

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »